Breeding debate proves emotional

March 8, 2011

Baxter Black

Last fall the animal rights groups put Proposition B on the ballot in Missouri. The bill was written to reduce the number of breeding kennels that produce usually purebred puppies for pet stores. The bill was opposed by the Missouri Veterinary Association, the American Kennel Club and other animal-related groups. The bill failed in 111 counties and passed in 3. The three were St. Louis and Kansas City. That was enough. It passed.

The main thrust of the animal rights groups support was that, according to them, breeding kennels produce an estimated one million puppies a year and animal shelters in the U.S. euthanize an estimated two million dogs a year. Therefore people should adopt abandoned dogs instead of purchasing new puppies. That is an altruistic suggestion but…do we have the right to deprive citizens of choosing their own puppy or kitten? To carry this logic on, should we disallow new housing to be built in Florida because people are abandoning their homes in Ohio?

The debate over Prop. B was an emotional one. It involved many issues and “shadings” regarding the seriousness of the problem and the motives of both sides. But both sides would agree that if animals are abused, abusers should be punished.

The substantive argument revolved around required enforcement of laws already in place that are administered by the state and veterinarians under the guidance of the USDA. The emotional argument incorporated examples of abuse and incendiary claims of malnutrition, greed, and unhealthy conditions. Which, of course, is already against the laws in place.

Which begs the question, why are responsible pet owners being restricted from obtaining a pet of their choice, because irresponsible people abandon their dogs which often have to be euthanized by the pound? Where is the ACLU? What’s next? Cars? Whenever Toyota has a recall and can’t sell all their inventory, should General Motors and Ford be forced to reduce their production until Toyota cleans up their act? Where is Thomas Jefferson!

Eminent Domain is based on the principle that your private property may be taken from you for the public good. The animal rightists support of Prop. B use that same insidious logic when they restrict the public’s right to choose, in order to punish the irresponsible and ignorant. Where’s the NRA!

To use their specious reasoning to limit all purebred kennels because we have to euthanize two million abandoned dogs a year, flies in the face of the rights of every American. Where is the Supreme Court?

But I am one who believes there is more to this than animal cruelty. I suspect that the animal rightists have a deeper motive; the intention to limit or deprive or eliminate all of us from having pets. This is based on their idea that humans do not have the right to “own” animals. I go back to the archives and quote the president of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): “We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”